An apostle in Australia

[ViaCrucis]

I hope that helps.

It helps demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. But that's about it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[biblicalbro]

3 requirements to be an Apostle

1) they would have to have seen the resurrected Christ
2) called by Christ/ sent and do miracles
3) write Scripture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

3 requirements to be an Apostle

1) they would have to have seen the resurrected Christ
2) called by Christ/ sent and do miracles
3) write Scripture.

Not all the Apostles mentioned in Scripture even fit all that criteria. I'm not defending the idea of some modern day apostle, but going by that criteria then most of the Twelve Apostles themselves wouldn't fit the criteria. Of the Twelve, the only one we can be absolutely confident who wrote anything in the New Testament is Peter, maybe James assuming that St. James Adelphotheos is also the same as St. James the son of Alphaeus, aka St. James the Lesser (this interpretation seems difficult unless one maintains the opinion of Jerome that Jesus' siblings were His cousins, and thus Alphaeus was Jesus' uncle). Tradition maintains that St. Matthew the Apostle wrote the Gospel which bears his name, and that likewise St. John the Apostle wrote the Gospel which bears his name, the other Johanine texts (1-3 John, and the Apocalypse of St. John) are also often associated with the Apostle John, or perhaps with another John known as St. John the Presbyter (with the two Johns sometimes being regarded separately and sometimes identified as the same in ancient tradition). Lastly, maybe the Epistle of St. Jude, but this is made difficult by the lateness of the text.

So even in the best case, the only apostles who have names attached to Scripture are Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, and perhaps James and Jude; and also Mark and Luke arguably.

However this leaves Andrew, James the Greater, Philip, Simon Zealotes, Nathaniel/Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthias excluded among the Twelve. It further excludes Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Timothy, Andronicus, and Junia, all of whom are named or identified as being apostles in Scripture.

It therefore seems that the third criteria simply can't be accepted.

It is not clear that all the apostles were sent to do miracles, though all were sent to be Christ's witnesses, to do the work of an apostolos, an emmisary, one sent out with a purpose. In Christ's Great Commission He does not sent His apostles out to do miracles, but to preach the Gospel, to proclaim forgiveness in His name, to make disciples, to baptize (etc).

The personal calling of Christ is reasonable, but also somewhat problematic biblically speaking. After all we have the case of Apollos who we are told was a disciple of John the Baptist who was then properly catechised by learning from Sts. Priscilla and Aquilla. It is always possible that Apollos did have some sort of encounter with the risen Lord, similar to Paul perhaps, though no evidence for this exists. Likewise, no evidence of this exists for Matthias who replaced Judas Iscariot, or for any of the other named apostles in the New Testament apart from the original Eleven, and also Paul whose apostleship did come from a special dispensation from the Lord who appeared directly before him on the Damascus road.

Most importantly, Scripture itself does not itself establish these criteria. Historically the Christian Church instead has recognized that the time of the apostles is limited to the first generation, and so we don't find those properly recognized as apostles in the 2nd century or later. Instead those closest to the apostles who survived until the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd are regarded as the first generation of fathers, and are called the apostolic fathers.

-CryptoLutheran